Well, we can put to rest the whole Champions Bowl location...as the Sugar Bowl has been selected as the location for the Big 12 vs SEC bowl game. So the "Champions Bowl" name will be dropped in favor of the "Sugar Bowl".

Good to see. Good location for the event, good market for both conferences. Keeps the tradition of that bowl game, making it actually a lot better. And the good thing is that with the SEC and Big 12 being in solid spots each year, there's a good chance they'll be able to get an SEC vs Big 12 matchup even when a school is out for the playoffs. SEC seems a lock...Big 12 nit far behind. NOT having a CCG will help the Big 12 get the top Big 12 school into the playoffs and the #2 in the Sugar Bowl...similar to the success the Big Ten had during the BCS years when they didn't have a championship game.

If the Sugar Bowl is to be the permanent host, the B12 may want to consider Tulane University with any expansion, having a member school in New Orleans.

Unfortunately, Tulane has not been showing more athletic success and sports attendance enthusiasm to elicit strong appeal. Location, academics, commitment to improving facilities, ole-time name, are good factors already there. B12 schools playing in N.O. during the regular season is not bad for their exposure.

(IF ---not necessarily advocating--- the B12 was using an ACC-type of mindset under these circumstances, Tulane...and even Rice could be in the picture).

I must have missed something too. Not aware that the site of the final game has been addressed so far, only the six Dec 31-Jan 1 games.

Westwolf, I believe everyone is missing something here or the BCS Conference Commissioners and Bowls pulled a fast one on us college football fans.

Less say after 2014 any city could bid on the college football national championship game and say Indianapolis were selected to host this game. Since this city has a domed stadium as is home to the NCAA would be a welcome change to have a college football championship game played in a city other than the sun belt.

In the above scenario, less assume the host bowls for the semi finals would be the Fiesta and Cotton bowls. The Sugar (SEC/Big 12), Orange (ACC/ND/Big Ten/SEC), and Rose (Big Ten/Pac 12) would be taken by conferences or Notre Dame with automatic access.

That would leave the final sixth access bowl the Atlanta Chick-Fil-A in this year scenario available to host at large teams. These at large teams could include a Big East team.

Assuming there is a need for a seventh access bowl, the idea of having an independent city host the championship game must have got squashed which is causing the issues of access for non BCS conferences including the Big East.

It certainly appears we have the same old problem plaguing college football with the bowls having way too much control in college football playoff system.

So in the event Pasadena has the highest bid for the National Championship game is the National Championship game the Rose Bowl or is there a Rose Bowl between at-large teams (likely Big Ten and Pac 12) and THEN a national championship game at the same site a week later?

But then, like its been suggested, what if Indianapolis hosts the National Championship? In this scenario there would definitely be the 6 big access bowls (2 of whom would be hosting the Semi Finals) on New Years Day and then a clearly separate title game. This scenario means that you have the top 4 who are in the playoff and then 8 at-large spots. The other scenario would only mean 6 at-large slots in big time access bowls.

I think a site can double-host the NCG and a contract bowl / access bowl / semi-final game.(I say this because I think the Rose, Orange, Sugar, etc. are said to be bidding on NCG's...)

However the 6 designated annual sites can only hose one of: contract bowl / access bowl / semi-final in a given year, since those 6 games are currently planned to occur over a 48-hour period (New Year's Eve / New year's Day).I THINK these games will be referred to as Rose / Sugar / Orange / Fiesta / Cotton / Chick-Fil-A, and the NCG is "the NCAAA D-I FBS National Championship Game (perhaps "at the Rose Bowl"). Not sure who controls sponsorship of the NCG.

tute79 and fighting Muskie, I believe you both are on to something here.

If Los Angles were to bid on the college football championship game, the Rose would continue to be played on New Year day and host the Pac 12/Big Ten or in certain years the Semi final game. A second game will always be required for the championship game which has to be one week later after the semi final games are played on New Year’s Eve and the other on New Year’s day.

I thought the whole idea of preserving the Rose and now the Sugar Bowl tradition were to always play these games on New Year Day and Night regardless if they host the semi final games or the conference tie in game.

This is where the confusion comes into play, the Rose and Sugar will either host the SEC/Big 12 or Big Ten/Pac 12 or host the semi final games.

If there are only six access bowls which include the semi final and championship games, it would have to work like the following in a certain year.

Fiesta and Chick-Fil-A host the semi final game.

Rose and Sugar host the conference champions or highest ranked teams not making the playoff from those tie in conferences (Pac 12/Big Ten/Big 12/SEC).

Orange hosting the ACC champion or highest ACC team not making the playoff against ND/Big Ten/SEC team.

Cotton Bowl hosting the National championship game in this particular year.

Maybe the Rose and Sugar are succeeding in allowing the Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, and Chick-Fil-A to always potentially host the championship game every four years if we only have 6 access bowl games. Else the Rose and Sugar Bowls would have to be played a week after New Year Day which is not traditional in some years they get to host the national championship game. My understanding is these two bowl games will always be played in traditional afternoon and night on New Year day regardless if they are hosting conference tie teams or semi final teams.

Otherwise we are looking at 7 and not 6 access bowls each year that would provide more access to non tie in leagues such as the Big East.

Something is not adding up here with number of access bowls when you factor in the plus one championship game that is required.

right now the plan is for 6 bowls prior to NC game:Rose - B1G vs. PACSugar - BXII vs. SECOrange - ACC vs. ND/B1G/SEC#4 - at large vs. at large#5 - Semi-Final#6 - Semi-Final(not clear how the rotation of semi-fianls will work at this point)The selection committee would pick the 4 semi-finalists + 2 at-larges.

Then you have the NC game a week later, which COULD be at one of the six sites above (or not).

Proposed game #7 would be on the same weekend with the 6 games above and would be: BE/MAC/SBC/CUSA/MWC/ (independent ?) vs. BXII/PAC.

I've seen rumors that if the 7th game comes through one of the games would be played on New Years Eve. Obviously not the playoffs which will be in prime time Jan1/2 or Sugar/Rose which will be the midafternoon games but the Orange bowl, Midmajor bowl and the "At large" bowl are real possibilities to rotate between the noon slots and prime time on Dec31. It would all make sense if people can get over the fact that it would technically not be a "Janurary bowl."

_________________Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

If the Sugar Bowl is to be the permanent host, the B12 may want to consider Tulane University with any expansion, having a member school in New Orleans.

Unfortunately, Tulane has not been showing more athletic success and sports attendance enthusiasm to elicit strong appeal. Location, academics, commitment to improving facilities, ole-time name, are good factors already there. B12 schools playing in N.O. during the regular season is not bad for their exposure.

(IF ---not necessarily advocating--- the B12 was using an ACC-type of mindset under these circumstances, Tulane...and even Rice could be in the picture).

Yeah, I still believe Tulane is getting its stuff in order for inclusion into one of the majors. I think they'd be happy in the Big XII or ACC (I know institutionally, they see themselves as ACC material), but they are spending so much money to update their athletics in the right places. OCS, updates to the basketball arena, the updated indoor facilities, softening on partial-qualifiers...them's fightin' words.

I know I raise Rice as a candidate from time to time, quasi-seriously, but I think their institution is beginning to "get it" where it concerns athletics. And they are quite literally in the same boat as Tulane, if not, potentially more worse off. It's not what's becoming of C-USA that is a major concern, but rather what happened to TCU, SMU, and Houston that is. Left behind. Rice was a major player, if the SWC could be considered that...now they are on the same line as UNT and UTSA (and probably only a matter of time until TSUSM and/or UTA, too). I think Rice is waking up.

right now the plan is for 6 bowls prior to NC game:Rose - B1G vs. PACSugar - BXII vs. SECOrange - ACC vs. ND/B1G/SEC#4 - at large vs. at large#5 - Semi-Final#6 - Semi-Final(not clear how the rotation of semi-fianls will work at this point)The selection committee would pick the 4 semi-finalists + 2 at-larges.

Then you have the NC game a week later, which COULD be at one of the six sites above (or not).

Proposed game #7 would be on the same weekend with the 6 games above and would be: BE/MAC/SBC/CUSA/MWC/ (independent ?) vs. BXII/PAC.

tute79,This makes sense with the two at large teams which I did not realize were included in the 6 access bowls. I am assuming these at large bids would be selected by the same committee that will determine the four teams in the playoff.

There is currently a rumor on the Big East boards, the Big East and other non five power leagues will get one of the bids in the six access bowls.

I could not understand how there were be an opening or at large bids in the six access bowls if the championship game were included as well.

There is really no need for a 7 access bowl when we have two at large bids available.

If you review the current BCS structure, there are actually more bids available in the new system compared to the old one. This would mean 12 access bids with 6 bowls compared to 10 bids in the old system and two of the current system bids of 10 are included in the BCS title game.

In net there are actually four new BCS bowl slots available so there is no reason the access bowls could not provide one of the at large bids to the non power leagues.

If the Sugar Bowl is to be the permanent host, the B12 may want to consider Tulane University with any expansion, having a member school in New Orleans.

Unfortunately, Tulane has not been showing more athletic success and sports attendance enthusiasm to elicit strong appeal. Location, academics, commitment to improving facilities, ole-time name, are good factors already there. B12 schools playing in N.O. during the regular season is not bad for their exposure.

(IF ---not necessarily advocating--- the B12 was using an ACC-type of mindset under these circumstances, Tulane...and even Rice could be in the picture).

Yeah, I still believe Tulane is getting its stuff in order for inclusion into one of the majors. I think they'd be happy in the Big XII or ACC (I know institutionally, they see themselves as ACC material), but they are spending so much money to update their athletics in the right places. OCS, updates to the basketball arena, the updated indoor facilities, softening on partial-qualifiers...them's fightin' words.

I know I raise Rice as a candidate from time to time, quasi-seriously, but I think their institution is beginning to "get it" where it concerns athletics. And they are quite literally in the same boat as Tulane, if not, potentially more worse off. It's not what's becoming of C-USA that is a major concern, but rather what happened to TCU, SMU, and Houston that is. Left behind. Rice was a major player, if the SWC could be considered that...now they are on the same line as UNT and UTSA (and probably only a matter of time until TSUSM and/or UTA, too). I think Rice is waking up.

We have two discussions going on this thread and did not want to keep bumping this subject back since it actually pertains to expansion possibilities.

Just like the Big Ten which remained at 11 for many years we will keep hearing rumors and suggestions until the Big 12 expands back to 12 schools.

I do not see any connection to the Sugar Bowl and expanding with Tulane for the Big 12.

This not implying that Tulane would not be considered for the Big 12 because. If not mistaken there have been rumors in the past of Big 12 interest in Tulane.

I see Tulane as more of an ACC school compared with the Big 12. While the ACC has large flagship state schools as well, the conference has a much larger percentage of small private colleges with very good academics. Tulane would be similar to Wake Forest, Duke, Miami Fla, Boston College, Syracuse, and for that matter Notre Dame. To me this was the primary reason Notre Dame selected partial membership in the ACC over the Big 12.

Ditto Rice which be similar to Tulane for the ACC and do not see Rice ever getting the votes necessary to join the Big 12. Why would Kansas and schools want another Texas schools to compete with Texas requiting. Four is more than enough Texas schools for any one league.

With the exception of Baylor and TCU, the Big 12 has a much larger percentage of state schools and many are those schools are flagship for that state.

When the time comes to expand, I believe the Big 12 would first look at any flagship school that is available.

I see Rutgers a far more likely target for the Big 12 compared with Tulane. I likewise seeing Rutgers jumping at the chance to join the Big 12 if offered membership for many of the same reasons. This is especially true if the Big Ten holds up at 12 for the long term which I believe the conference will do now that Notre Dame is off the table.

While everyone was assuming last year the north would not be competitive with south that would include Texas and Oklahoma, Kansas State performance this year has more that changed this view.

North

Kansas StateKansasIowa StateLouisvilleWVURutgers

South

TexasTexas TechBaylor TCUOklahoma StateOklahoma

This would be a perfectly aligned conference stretching from Texas to the eastern shores and taking in NYC in the same process.

In early 2000 there were many national articles that wanted the Big East to expand into the southwest and the above scenario would accomplish many of those same benefits that were discussed by national publications including Sports Illustrated.

tute79,This makes sense with the two at large teams which I did not realize were included in the 6 access bowls. I am assuming these at large bids would be selected by the same committee that will determine the four teams in the playoff.

There is currently a rumor on the Big East boards, the Big East and other non five power leagues will get one of the bids in the six access bowls.

I could not understand how there were be an opening or at large bids in the six access bowls if the championship game were included as well.

There is really no need for a 7 access bowl when we have two at large bids available.

If you review the current BCS structure, there are actually more bids available in the new system compared to the old one. This would mean 12 access bids with 6 bowls compared to 10 bids in the old system and two of the current system bids of 10 are included in the BCS title game.

In net there are actually four new BCS bowl slots available so there is no reason the access bowls could not provide one of the at large bids to the non power leagues.

lash - the 7th bowl was ruled dead because no one wanted to give the BigEast+MidMajors access to a bowl annually and end up like the Orange Bowl has been over the last decade. This is how it will work.

Playoffs will seed 1-4 (with 4 possibly swapping with 5 if 5 is a conference champion and 4 is not, could go to 6 but that seems unlikely)

The Rose/Sugar/Orange are fully tied up.

So for a BigEast+MidMajor to make a BCS game they'd have to be in the top 4 or get selected for the only at large bowl that will be wanting to pit the top money making teams against each other to ensure a sell out.

So its unlikely that the nonAQ will get an automatic bid, now their could be a semi-automatic bid similar to the old if top 12 and a conference champ rule just to avoid anti-trust lawsuits but no way do they simply pencil in a spot every year for the nonAQs.

Here's my best guess one how the last 4 year would have shaken out in the new post season...

So in summary, undefeated Utah, TCU, Cincy, and Boise all make BCS games but a #7 Boise is passed over for the more attractive teams along with the #9 BSU 11 TCU and 12 Cincy. And while yes that does even out to 1 per year, 3 of those came in 2009 and all those teams are now in the BE or AQ conferences so there would have to be 3 semi popular undefeated teams from the BE, MWC and either the MAC or SBC for that to ever happen again (highly unlikely). Best I see it, the BE+MMs should push harder for that 7th bowl and get a guaranteed spot that 9 times out of 10 goes to the BE or sue the BCS or whatever they are calling themselves now to get another if top 12 rule instituted to have more access to the at large bowl.

BTW here are my projections for 2012 if they had the new post season. (assuming undefeated Lville makes it at 6 if not even with another loss Clemson Texas or UCLA could swoop in, A&M could too if they are were willing to give the SEC 5 bids and pit 2 SEC teams who didn't play against each other)

Highest ranked of the Big East, CUSA, MW, MAC, and SB conferences get an automatic spot in the new postseason model. This does not include independent teams such BYU (and Idaho, New Mexico St, and Army) - how happy is BYU with independance after this? Do the BYU-Big 12 rumors start up again?

Highest ranked of the Big East, CUSA, MW, MAC, and SB conferences get an automatic spot in the new postseason model. This does not include independent teams such BYU (and Idaho, New Mexico St, and Army) - how happy is BYU with independance after this? Do the BYU-Big 12 rumors start up again?

I thought the same thing. BYU has to decide whether they want post season access (and big bowl money) or if they want their television contract money and the exposure that comes with their ESPN contract. Going to the Big East might mean taking a pay cut in their television revenue becuase as one of the biggest programs in the new Big East they would be subsidizing some of the others in the television contract. This kind of announcement is sure to start all sorts of conversations about the Cougars and the BE but I think BYU is aiming higher and they aren't going to answer Aresco's phone calls

My interpretation is that you have the 6 bowls. The Rose, Sugar, and Orange are termed "contract bowls" because they have dibs on the champions from their respective conferences when they aren't hosting semi final games. The other three, likely the Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach are called "host bowls", presumably because will host conference champions when their regular bowl is unavailable due to hosting a semi final.

6 of the 12 spots are spoken for--champs of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, Pac 12, and the best of the Big East/C-USA/MAC/MWC/SBC. The other 6 spots will then be at-large selections and I am guessing the committee that picks the 4 playoff teams will also get a say in who the at large selections will be. I'm hoping that these at large spots are based on merit/rankings rather than money and cronyism but you never know with college football.

I think the idea is to pack as many of those 6 bowls as possible on New Year's Day. This would require either splitting the television contract with 2 partners or going with a partner with multiple channels that have broad distribution (ESPN/ABC or FOX/FX) and airing some games simultaneously. Perhaps one of the lesser bowls (host bowls) gets bumped to prime time on New Year's Eve but I doubt we see any big bowls airing while people are still at work.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum